Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality v. Environmental Protection Agency
408 U.S. App. D.C. 51
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality petitions for review of EPA's Indian Country NSR Rule (FIP) governing non-reservation Indian country.
- The Rule creates a federal NSR program in Indian country nationwide where tribes have not demonstrated jurisdiction.
- The EPA relies on 42 U.S.C. § 7601(d)(4) to administer a program in lieu of tribes; jurisdiction remains with states absent tribal or EPA authority.
- Michigan v. EPA governs EPA’s authority when regulating Indian country and the need for tribal jurisdiction.
- The court vacates the Indian Country NSR Rule as it applies to non-reservation lands, holding states retain jurisdiction absent demonstrated tribal authority or EPA delegation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Oklahoma has standing to challenge the Rule. | Oklahoma shows injury to SIP authority and seeks vacatur. | EPA argues injury may be self-inflicted via SAFETEA remedy. | Oklahoma has standing to sue. |
| Whether the challenge is time-barred by the Tribal Authority Rule’s statements in 1998. | Tribal Authority Rule did not decide the issue of non-reservation SIP applicability. | Rule established SIP non-applicability in Indian country. | Challenge timely under the 1998 rule. |
| Whether the EPA had authority to impose a nationwide FIP in Indian country rather than deferring to tribes or SIPs. | Jursidiction over non-reservation lands lies with states; EPA cannot unilaterally displace. | EPA may act in the shoes of a tribe when tribes have no jurisdiction. | EPA exceeded authority; state jurisdiction over non-reservation lands remains. |
| Whether the EPA’s authority under § 7601(d)(4) allows regulation in lands where no tribe has demonstrated jurisdiction. | EPA must operate in the same shoes as a tribe and cannot fill gaps without tribal jurisdiction. | § 7601(d)(4) authorizes direct administration where tribe lacks program. | EPA may not regulate non-reservation Indian country absent tribal jurisdiction; state remains regulator. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury, causation, redressability)
- Michigan v. EPA, 268 F.3d 1075 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (binary jurisdiction: jurisdiction must lie with state or tribe; EPA cannot supplant)
- Ariz. Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (tribal jurisdiction over reservation; tribes must demonstrate authority for non-reservation areas)
- Small Refiner Lead Phase-Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (agency duty to justify key assumptions in rulemaking)
- Arizona Pub. Serv. Co. v. EPA, 211 F.3d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (reiteration of tribal jurisdiction framework)
- City of Idaho Falls, Idaho v. FERC, 629 F.3d 222 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (agency interpretations of regulations require statutory consistency)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1997) (deference to agency interpretations of its regulations limited when inconsistent with statute)